Recreational Marijuana will it increase Lung Cancer and Bladder Cancer? (Obama, insurance)

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by burdell

Given the choice, I'd much rather take my chances with a stoned driver than a black-out drunk driver. The stoned driver's greatest infraction is likely to be driving too slow.

Then why have BOTH? Drunk drivers aren't enough? We've gotta add an extra way to get killed? The stoned driver will probably have impaired speed of reaction, not just slow driving.

I'm not against medicinal marijuana but we have enough risks already. And even medical marijuana shouldn't be smoked, it should be eaten. I'm sure we had a previous discussion about particulate matter in any smoke--it's unhealthy.

Marijuana and Lung Health | American Lung Association

Marijuana Smoke
Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.4-7

Secondhand smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens--how about our right to not be breathing this stuff in? The smoke damages the lungs, can lead to bronchitis, and can cause some people to be more prone to lung infections. I've smoked enough weed in my day and I might eat some if it becomes legal here--but it should be medicinal and not consumed anywhere in which it could harm other people. OTHER people have rights too.

[in_newengland]

Since it's harmful to lung health, there's a good chance marijuana could lead to lung cancer. Why take the chance? Do we have to wait ten years or so until somebody finally proves it inconclusively? Why not be pro-active and, if you want to take marijuana, then use the edible form.

Even then, you shouldn't be out driving around in a car after eating it. I drove after having smoked it--didn't get in an accident but came close to it and luckily, was able to pull over until the effect wore off. We are just asking for yet another societal problem. We didn't used to think cigarette smoke was dangerous either--had to wait around for all the studies to finally come out. By that time...well, I think we know.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Then why have BOTH? Drunk drivers aren't enough? We've gotta add an extra way to get killed? The stoned driver will probably have impaired speed of reaction, not just slow driving.

WHERE did I ever say I endorsed driving stoned or drunk? And if we're gonna act so concerned about impaired driving we oughta look at making cell-phones unusable when driving, right?

To me the question should not be 'Why have BOTH?', rather WHY punish one and not the other as far as use when not driving goes?

[bawac34618]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Totally false, and misleading. The chemicals created by burning both tobacco, and marijuana are harmful to the human body when inhaled. The Left has demonized cigarettes, and legal tobacco, but marijuana is fine? More Progressive logic.

Why, other than "because Jesus" do conservatives think cannabis is dangerous enough to warrant prohibition? The same people who want to lock people up for a decade over a small amount of marijuana stick up for the tobacco industry every chance they get. I think I know what it is. Tobacco is considered an American tradition. The Marlboro Man invokes the conservative vision of what America is. Most of the white, conservative men depicted in movies from the 1950s through the 1970s were all smokers. To the contrary, cannabis is associated with counterculture, liberalism, and minorities.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

I'm not against medicinal marijuana but we have enough risks already. And even medical marijuana shouldn't be smoked, it should be eaten. I'm sure we had a previous discussion about particulate matter in any smoke--it's unhealthy.

Marijuana and Lung Health | American Lung Association

Marijuana Smoke
Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.4-7

Secondhand smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens--how about our right to not be breathing this stuff in? The smoke damages the lungs, can lead to bronchitis, and can cause some people to be more prone to lung infections. I've smoked enough weed in my day and I might eat some if it becomes legal here--but it should be medicinal and not consumed anywhere in which it could harm other people. OTHER people have rights too.

Isn't it HUGELY hypocritical of government to accept taxes on tobacco sales and allow people to smoke cigarettes while making marijuana use criminal? Can you cite any real reason for it to be so other than the tobacco lobby having lots of $$$ to buy legislators with and the income generated by tobacco taxes?

[bawac34618]

Originally Posted by burdell

Isn't it HUGELY hypocritical of government to accept taxes on tobacco sales and allow people to smoke cigarettes while making marijuana use criminal? Can you cite any real reason for it to be so other than the tobacco lobby having lots of $$$ to buy legislators with and the income generated by tobacco taxes?

The Marlboro Man invokes the conservative vision of what America is. Most of the white, conservative men depicted in movies from the 1950s through the 1970s were all smokers. To the contrary, cannabis is associated with counterculture, liberalism, and minorities.

[Kracer]

Originally Posted by le roi

Just because tobacco causes cancer does not mean cannabis does.

Tobacco, for example, gives you mouth cancer just by chewing it. It's naturally full of harmful chemicals.

Cannabis OTOH is not full of known harmful chemicals. It just has a handful of psychoactive substances. However it hasn't been studied as thoroughly as tobacco, so conclusions aren't as reliable.

Being a science denier can be deadly.


Try to read past the slogans and bumper sticker science refrains about health and medicine.


Smoke, unburned hydrocarbons is not healthy for you. No matter the source. Enough evidence that other medical issues result form MJ use. Each person is different that's why the 96 year old guy who smoked ciggys all his life is doing just fine. He would be an exception, not a model to suggest ciggy smoking is not harmful.


"However, the most potent carcinogen in tobacco is radiation from the radioactive products of radon. Polonium-210 is the only component of cigarette smoke that has produced cancers by itself in laboratory animals by inhalation...."


Then of course interfering with the central nervous system is its own 'reward'.


Decriminalize not legalize.


MJ is a gateway drug for some, not all, but in liberal logic, 'if just one life could be saved'.


I could care less if someone grows pot in their backyard and smokes until their lungs turn black, just don't leave your house, drive or work under the influence. Only hope is anyone causing death or injury while under the influence is maxed out in punishment, same goes for alcohol.


Liberals want to take away personal responsibility for everything and here they assume all users will be responsible.

[Raddo]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

Since it's harmful to lung health, there's a good chance marijuana could lead to lung cancer. .

I hate posting here anymore. But I hate even more posters here that post crap like they know what they are talking about.

The amount of bunk posted in this thread is at epic proportions.

To the OP and to the mod I am replying to, why can't you wrap your head around the fact that MILLIONS have been using it (in the smokeable form), DAILY, for over 50 YEARS???

We don't need 10 years of recreational legalization in order to discover any sort of "truth". If the concern presented by the OP had any merit, our hospitals would already be full of lung cancer patients caused by marijuana. But the fact is, there is not a single poster here that CAN PRODUCE EVEN ONE DOCUMENTED CASE!

I personally have been using it daily for 47 years. I have a clan of friends that I grew up with who are around my age (61) who still use it daily. Not one case of cancer to report. This is not an isolated observation. The 1970's did, in fact, produce millions of marijuana smokers. Most of us are still around, walking upright.

On the other hand, every single day 1000's of people are harmed in some way or another by prohibition. But I have come to realize that asking a prohibitionist to open their eyes is simply asking too much.

I have a feeling that the OP doesn't genuinely care about future cases of lung cancer. I submit the point of creating the thread is to try to keep legalization controversial in order to try to keep prohibition in effect as long as they can. Reefer Madness on display. The brainwashing was incredibly effective, to the point of closed-mindedness to ANY facts or logic.

[CALGUY]

I think the OP needs to proof read the post before submitting it.

Bob.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by burdell

Given the choice, I'd much rather take my chances with a stoned driver than a black-out drunk driver. The stoned driver's greatest infraction is likely to be driving too slow.

I'd rather take my chances with neither.